Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Price to Upgrade to LR 2.0  (Read 13423 times)
John Hollenberg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 763


« Reply #20 on: April 03, 2008, 06:55:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I see a lot of goodwill in the LR team.  I'm yet to be convinced by Adobe as a whole.  LR was almost stillborn.  For some time to come I am convinced LR's talented engineers will be constrained by segment overlap and the fear of canibalisation.   Adobe's senior managers are responsible for balancing this equation. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186889\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That would be a shame if LR was hobbled by fear of losing PS sales.  More competition (e.g., Aperture) should help to limit that problem.

--John
Logged
Tam
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 39



WWW
« Reply #21 on: April 03, 2008, 07:06:06 PM »
ReplyReply

"LR was almost stillborn."

I just don't understand this attitude. I have used Lr since the second I got my hands on it - and it has been a delight to edit my 12,000 RAW files with it.

I use Ps as well - on every photo that I consider portfolio worthy. I will no doubt continue to use Ps for all the things that it does well - but I will organize and process most of my material in Lr. If Lr grows to include all the things that I take a trip to Ps for I will eventually abandon Ps - but I don't think that Lr is heading in that direction.

As for comparisons with Aperture - I'm pretty much out of that loop being a PC user. PCs represent a huge part of the marketplace. Aperture may be a better solution for Mac users. I don't know.
Logged
canlogic
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 97


WWW
« Reply #22 on: April 03, 2008, 07:38:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Better conversions in what way?  Sometimes I wish I had a Mac so I can see how the other half lives... but as a die hard PC owner for 25 years it is hard to make a change.  Every time I play with a Mac I am not impressed (not Mac bashing, just my impression).

--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186878\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I can't really explain the difference but they just look better to me. Last summer I did a couple of weddings for friends, I used both my M8 and my 5D and took basically the same shots with both cameras. I shot about 1100 images at each wedding. When I did sample prints and gave each couple dvd's of the images to choose for printing both couples chose about 75% M8 images. Both cameras produce excellent images and I use both extensivly but yet there is something about images from the M8. It is the same difference I now find with Aperture 2 and LR 1.3. I can't really describe it but as of right now to me Aperture has the edge. That could very well change as LR 2 comes closer to release. As far as Mac V Pc I actually work as a software developer and consultant on PC's. I bought a Mac because of Aperture and although I hadn't used a MAc in about 20 years I must admit I prefer it for my photography and video stuff. I have three Dell workstations running and a 21" M2010 Dell notebook that I use for work and a 24" iMac and recently a Macbook for my photo stuff. When friends ask me now what to buy for their home PC's I tell them buy a Mac.
Logged

1dmkIII, some lenses, Epson 7880, iMac, Leica M8, other stuff
GregW
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 305


WWW
« Reply #23 on: April 03, 2008, 09:46:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
"LR was almost stillborn."

I just don't understand this attitude. I have used Lr since the second I got my hands on it - and it has been a delight to edit my 12,000 RAW files with it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186896\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think you misunderstand my point.  I largely share your delight in LR.  I originally purchased Aperture 1.0.  I know only too well how good LR 1.x is.

I was making the point that there was a time when Adobe were 'reluctant' to bring Lightroom to market despite the efforts of the LR team.
Logged
Tam
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 39



WWW
« Reply #24 on: April 03, 2008, 10:14:55 PM »
ReplyReply

ahh. Now I understand what you meant. Thanks.
Logged
Fish_Shooter
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


WWW
« Reply #25 on: April 04, 2008, 01:53:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
. I think they kind of rushed it out to stave off sales of Apperture and are now adding the missing stuff back in.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186713\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I have similar thoughts. Their timing being a big giveaway. Rather underwhelmed by the new features.     Needs far more additions to warrant a left to the decimal point number increase IMHO.   Still has a rather rudimentary watermark for example.  The new feature of interest to me is the burn and dodge tool. Maybe worth $25 for the upgrade.
Logged
PECourtejoie
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 18


« Reply #26 on: April 04, 2008, 04:56:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Do photographers get free upgrades to the new version of their camera?
Logged
canlogic
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 97


WWW
« Reply #27 on: April 04, 2008, 09:14:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Do photographers get free upgrades to the new version of their camera?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186959\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

As a matter of fact as far as software (firmware) yes we do. That is not the point of the discussion. I don't think anyone is saying to not pay for upgrades. I am saying that the upgrades in 2.0 seem a bit light to me. Dual monitor support should have been in 1.0. I have only just started playing with the beta and I have not found it to be a milestone that warrants a major upgrade price. Apple just came out with an Apperture 2.1 update where they included a dodge and burn plugin for free, mind you the 2.0 release was not free.
Logged

1dmkIII, some lenses, Epson 7880, iMac, Leica M8, other stuff
IanSeward
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #28 on: April 04, 2008, 09:33:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I see a lot of goodwill in the LR team. I'm yet to be convinced by Adobe as a whole. LR was almost stillborn. For some time to come I am convinced LR's talented engineers will be constrained by segment overlap and the fear of canibalisation. Adobe's senior managers are responsible for balancing this equation.

Apple failed to deliver with Aperture v1 to point that many believed they had completely lost interest. Well see what they come up over the next 12-18 months. What is for sure is that they are only limited by technical challenges and the amount of resources Apple are willing to commit.

Things are very interesting right now."


I think the future of Lightroom will be the same as for Camera Raw; rolled into PS.  This could be a good idea if this new version of PS - PS for Digital Images, lost some bulk by omitting the graphic artist features.  It would be unbeatable having LR plus full PS editing in one package.  The suits at Adobe will make this happen at some time because of the above mentioned marketing problems for Adobe.
Logged
AjantaKVS
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


« Reply #29 on: April 04, 2008, 10:30:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I suppose one could point out that the software released as a Beta yesterday was described very carefully as unfinished and indeed, lacking features that will be in the release version.

It was clear to me that it was more of a rough sketch, released for comment and tire kicking.

So I really don't see the point in starting to be critical of its lack of features when you are not aware of the eventual feature set. I don't see the point of complaining about a price that hasn't been set.

I don't see the point in joining in on the discussion of what the next version of Lr will be, or will cost when the only point of view you can have is based on speculation and opinion unless you join in the spirit of cooperation and creativity that has characterized the entire Lr project.

I see a lot of good will on Adobe's part.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186885\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hello,
Here is the big Confusion  

Now the thing is that in one of the 'LR2 overview' by Ian Lyon's says that LR2 Beta release is 'feature complete' so the final release will not surprise you with any much needed major features.

Where as, one of the video demo from Julieannne Kost says
 Beta is feature incomplete and final version may have many new features.

So it is not clear whether LR2 Beta is feature complete or not. If it is feature complete, then considering  it  as a major release is quite unjustifiable as LR still falls back on PS for things like 'Soft proofing' and claiming as 'complete work flow solution' for photographers is not justifiable.

AjantaKVS
Logged
mcfoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 938


WWW
« Reply #30 on: April 04, 2008, 02:46:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi
I was hoping for tethered from this new version but no mention of it.
Denis
Logged

Denis Montalbetti
Montalbetti+Campbell
www.montalbetticampbell.com
crabby
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


WWW
« Reply #31 on: April 05, 2008, 10:34:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi
I was hoping for tethered from this new version but no mention of it.
Denis
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187084\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Me too.  I would like LR to handle my images from the get go. But sofar it ain't happening.  Aperture does it quite nicely but up until now I have been dragging my feet to switch over to avoid a capture workflow ping pong match.  I had great hopes Adobe would soon follow suit. Needless to say I am very disappointed with this upgrade. Mainly because it is being considered major with a missing link.

We'll see when they put a price tag on it what my decision will be.
Logged
reyn_two
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


« Reply #32 on: April 05, 2008, 12:21:18 PM »
ReplyReply

What baffles me (and that's easy) is why I have to organise and mess about with my files in Lightroom and then if I want to print them properly I have to have another Adobe product costing 500 to print them from. How everyone puts up with this lack of soft proofing in Lightroom I do not comprehend, and now they have the cheek to say they had to make difficult decisions and left soft proofing out. Come on guys the program will still be missing the most important addition in version 2 and you want to pay them more money. Adobe put in soft proofing, make the program stand alone for printing, if it takes two months longer so be it, or are you running out of money?
There are several reasons it's not being included.
They don't now how to do it!
They still want to sell photoshop to photographers!
They need a major item to include in version 3!
They don't like me?

Frank
Logged
John Hollenberg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 763


« Reply #33 on: April 05, 2008, 09:35:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Here is some additional information about features (or lack thereof) in LR 2.0.  This is a quote from Dan Tull, LR QE on the LR 2 Beta forum:

"I can give you one other reason that there's no archival/backup features in this version. The conversion from the old (and largely incoherent) shoots model that predated the folders panel was largely cosmetic in version 1 and the subsequent dot releases. The machinery under the hood needed some significant rework. The bad news is that most of these changes are not readily apparent*. The good news is, the new foundation is a far better one on which to build asset management features (like archive and backup) in the future.

I can't promise when or what will be delivered in the future (if I knew, which I don't, I couldn't tell you anyway), but I thought it might help to understand the dearth of such features this time around.

* One thing some folks might notice is that there are some significant improvements in the ability of LR to deal with folders going on and offline due to storage on NAS or external disk drives."

--John
Logged
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1258


« Reply #34 on: April 05, 2008, 11:22:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Here is some additional information about features (or lack thereof) in LR 2.0.  This is a quote from Dan Tull, LR QE on the LR 2 Beta forum:

"I can give you one other reason that there's no archival/backup features in this version. The conversion from the old (and largely incoherent) shoots model that predated the folders panel was largely cosmetic in version 1 and the subsequent dot releases. The machinery under the hood needed some significant rework. The bad news is that most of these changes are not readily apparent*. The good news is, the new foundation is a far better one on which to build asset management features (like archive and backup) in the future. <snip>
--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187339\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't care about the underlying mechanisms if the part I use doesn't change. If the changes make for better features in the future, then I'll be happy to pay for them in the future.

The local adjustments feature is worth quite a bit to me; I would upgrade for that alone. Dual screens is also good.

I shoot four digital cameras -- an M8, a Nikon D300 and D3, and a Leica P&S. I may lack sensitivity to the color vibrations, but I have not yet found anything that I can do in the Nikon software that I can't get out of Photoshop/Lightroom pretty quickly. May be different for batch processing, which I don't do. On the whole, I find LR/PS conversions to be pretty good.

More scaling/sizing facilities in preparing a jpg for web use, or just for e-mailing it, would also be nice.

I have four Apples (two iMacs, a Mac Pro and a MacBook Pro) and honest to god, if I could only coordinate a multi-unit breakdown so I could justify starting over, I'd go back to PC. Not to start off on a rant, or anything, but Apple is a little fascist state and anything the glorious leader doesn't want, you don't get. The 30-inch cinema screen *is* excellent -- using anything else is like looking through the viewfinder on a Canon Rebel. However, I bought one of the 20-something-inch cinema screens (22? 23?) two or three years back (the lucite one), and I find you can't even plug them into the new Mac Pro without a $100 converter that's about the size of a loaf of bread. Apple obsoleted (if that's a verb) a very expensive display that only a couple of years ago was state-of-the-art. They've pulled other stuff like that over the years, and seriously, if I get to the point where everything needs an upgrade, I may do a big favor to Michael Dell.

Don't even get me started about the number of USB ports on even high-end Macs...

JC
Logged
witwald
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #35 on: April 06, 2008, 12:24:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
LR was almost stillborn.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186889\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That really seems hard to believe, considering the way that photographers have taken to using Lightroom.
Logged
larsrc
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 173


WWW
« Reply #36 on: April 06, 2008, 08:35:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What baffles me (and that's easy) is why I have to organise and mess about with my files in Lightroom and then if I want to print them properly I have to have another Adobe product costing 500 to print them from. How everyone puts up with this lack of soft proofing in Lightroom I do not comprehend, and now they have the cheek to say they had to make difficult decisions and left soft proofing out. Come on guys the program will still be missing the most important addition in version 2 and you want to pay them more money. Adobe put in soft proofing, make the program stand alone for printing, if it takes two months longer so be it, or are you running out of money?
There are several reasons it's not being included.
They don't now how to do it!
They still want to sell photoshop to photographers!
They need a major item to include in version 3!
They don't like me?

Frank
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187257\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I am totally withn you in the bafflement. Hearing that LR 2.0 would not have soft-proofing prompted me to finally try out Aperture.  Aperture did lose, though: It hung on me several times, the interface is cramped and hard to read (totally un-Mac-like), after initial import I could only import one folder at a time, and it does not have chromatic aberration fixing at all. It also helped that I sped up LR by putting the catalog on a separate disk from the raw files. But I probably won't upgrade until there's soft proofing.

-Lars
Logged

CatOne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 379


WWW
« Reply #37 on: April 06, 2008, 08:55:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That really seems hard to believe, considering the way that photographers have taken to using Lightroom.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187354\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Adobe almost canned it.  Apple's release of Aperture helped them see that canning it wasn't the best plan, given someone saw a need for a product in the space.
Logged

Goodlistener
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 120



WWW
« Reply #38 on: April 07, 2008, 11:01:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Curious no one has mentioned 64bit support.  This plus Smart object support round-tripping into CS3 makes this a compelling upgrade, at least for me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186886\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Do you mind explaining what that means?  if somebody tells me that I'm going to get 64 bit support I might say I don't need my bits in a support...  But such a bad joke would demean the quality of the discussion. More seriously, I understand 8, 16, 32 and 64 bit OS. More bits means more instructions per CPU cycle, means more work accomplished in a given amount of time.  But what does this mean to me as a photographer in post-production?
Logged
budjames
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 690


WWW
« Reply #39 on: April 08, 2008, 02:46:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Who are we kidding. We all know that we are going to upgrade as I'm sure that the price will be worth it. We're addicted. We just can't help ourselves.

Bud
Logged

Bud James
North Wales, PA
www.budjamesphotography.com
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad